Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/132/2018

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Anupreet Kaur Sethi - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. M.K. Kohli

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 132 / 2018

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited

Divisional Office, Hotel Kumaon Plaza Building

Bazpur Road, Kashipur, District Udhamsingh Nagar

through The New India Assurance Company Limited

Regional Office, 2^nd Floor, 430, Niranjanpur

Saharanpur Road, Dehradun through its Manager

…… Appellant / Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Smt. Anupreet Kaur Sethi W/o Sh. Sandeep Singh Sethi

R/o House No. 272, Ganj Ward No. 13

Gurudwara Lane, Ramnagar Road, Kashipur

District Udhamsingh Nagar

…… Respondent / Complainant

 

Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                       Member-II

                             

Dated: 03/08/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udhamsingh Nagar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 13 of 2017; Smt. Anupreet Kaur Sethi Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant – opposite party was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,99,000/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till actual payment; Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and financial agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, for the purposes of earning livelihood, the respondent – complainant had purchased a truck bearing registration No. UP65-AR-0887.  The said truck was insured with the appellant – opposite party for the period from 07.06.2013 to 06.06.2014 at an IDV of Rs. 5,00,000/-.  No information was given to the complainant regarding any exclusion clause of the policy or deduction of amount in the insurance claim.  During the currency of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 18.01.2014, in which the front portion of the vehicle got completely burnt, written intimation whereof was given to the insurance company as well as police and fire brigade authority.  The insurance company appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 8,30,464/-.  On net of salvage basis without registration certificate, loss was assessed at Rs. 3,39,000/- and after deduction of Rs. 40,000/- from the said sum, the surveyor recommended for settlement of claim for sum of          Rs. 2,99,000/-.  The complainant got the vehicle repaired by incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/-.  After examination of the vehicle, fitness certificate thereof was issued by the concerned authority and the vehicle was insured for further period and the vehicle is in working condition.  The insurance company, however, did not settle the claim, thereby committing deficiency in service on their part.  Thus, a consumer complaint was instituted before the District Commission. 

 

3.       The insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was averred that at the time of accident, hazardous goods were being carried in the insured vehicle, in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  There was no endorsement in the driving licence of the driver, so as to entitle him to drive vehicle containing hazardous goods.  Sh. Sunil K. Agarwal was appointed as surveyor, who submitted his report and the surveyor has assessed the loss under three categories, namely, (a) Assessment of loss on repair basis; (b) Assessment of loss on total loss basis and (c) Assessment of loss on net of salvage basis without registration certificate.  As per the letter dated 20.03.2014 of the Head Office of the insurance company, registration certificate of the vehicle should be got cancelled before processing the claim on total basis, in order to avoid misuse of the registration certificate by the registered owners of insured vehicle.  The complainant has not informed regarding repair of the vehicle, on account whereof, the final survey could not be conducted.  The consumer complaint is devoid of merits.

 

4.       After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2018, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.      

 

5.       We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 

 

6.       It is an admitted fact that the respondent – complainant is the registered owner of the truck in question.  It is also admitted fact that the subject truck was insured with the appellant – insurance company for the period from 07.06.2013 to 06.06.2014.  It is further admitted that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the insured truck met with an accident.  The stand taken by the insurance company is that at the relevant time of accident, hazardous goods were being carried in the insured truck, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also that there was no endorsement in the driving licence of the driver, entitling him to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods.

 

7.       It has been pleaded by the insurance company that at the time of accident, Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders, which is a hazardous good, were being transported in the insured vehicle.  In this regard, it would not be out of place to mention here that upon receipt of intimation of accident, the insurance company has appointed Sh. Sunil K. Agarwal, surveyors and loss assessors, as surveyor for assessing the loss occasioned to the complainant.  Copy of the report dated 30.03.2014 submitted by the said surveyor is on record being Paper Nos. 21 to 25 of the memorandum of appeal.  A perusal of the said report shows that nowhere the surveyor has stated that at the time of accident, hazardous goods were being carried in the insured vehicle, rather the surveyor has assessed the loss under three categories, i.e., repair basis; total loss basis and net of salvage basis without registration certificate (R.C.).  In the report, the surveyor has also not mentioned that there was breach of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the insured.  Hence, it is not borne out from record that the insured vehicle was carrying hazardous goods at the time of accident.  

 

8.       It is not disputed that the claim so submitted by the complainant with the insurance company, was not repudiated by the insurance company.  If there was any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured and restricted / hazardous goods were being carried in the subject vehicle at the time of the accident, the insurance company ought to have repudiated the complainant’s claim, but the same was not done.  It would not be out of place to mention here that the accident in question took place on 18.01.2014 and the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission on 16.02.2017 and in reply thereto, while filing the written statement, the insurance company, for the first time, pleaded that the insured vehicle was being plied against the provisions of permit and terms of the insurance policy and also that the driving licence of the driver did not have an endorsement, entitling the driver to drive the vehicle containing hazardous goods.  It would further not be out of place to mention here that in the written statement too, no specific and clear plea was taken by the insurance company that at the time of the accident, hazardous goods were being carried in the vehicle.  Irrespective of above, as is stated above, if there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company could have repudiated the claim, which was not done.

 

9.       It was also argued on behalf of the insurance company that since the claim was not repudiated by the complainant, hence the consumer complaint filed before the District Commission was premature one.  It is fantastic on the part of the insurance company to linger on disposal of the claim for a period of more than three years’ from the date of accident and if the claim of the insured is not repudiated, the insured was bound to approach the Consumer Fora.  How long the insured shall wait for settlement of the claim by the insurance company from the date of mishap.  In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be said by any stretch of imagination that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was premature.

 

10.     Thus, we are of the considered opinion that there is no force in the plea put forward by the insurance company and we find no breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the insured.

 

11.     So far as quantum of compensation awarded by the District Commission is concerned, the insurance company through letter dated 10.09.2015 has sought consent of the complainant for settlement of claim without R.C. instead of with R.C., as mentioned in paragraph No. 8 contained at page No. 3 of the impugned judgment and order.  In paragraph No. 4 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the surveyor has recommended for settlement of claim at sum of Rs. 2,99,000/- without cancellation of R.C. and the said amount has been awarded by the District Commission.  Even otherwise, no challenge has been made on behalf of the insurance company to the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Commission.  This apart, there does not arise any question of cancellation of R.C. of the vehicle, as the complainant has got the vehicle repaired and fitness certificate has also been issued in regard to the insured vehicle and the same is in running condition.  Thus, it can not be said that it is a case of total loss.

 

12.     The net result of the above discussion is that we do not find any force in the pleas raised by the insurance company.  We are of the considered opinion that the District Commission was perfectly justified in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned judgment and order, which does not call for any interference by this Commission and is fit to be confirmed.  The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

 

13.     Appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                               President

 

K